September 4, 2010

NFL Preview 2010!!

It's here! I've just completed the 2010 NFL Preview, which marks the 21st year in a row I have produced such a tome (sad, isn't it?). But I can't help myself. I love watching NFL football, and I love to think I know something about it. Making a preview is just a natural extension of that. Goto http://home.swbell.net/captsah/nflpreview to download the full pdf file. In the meantime, here's a taste of the incredibly thorough research that went into this year's edition:




Enjoy!

SAH

July 27, 2010

Kansas City, Here We Come!

Lacie and I were able to visit Kansas City this past weekend to see the Wizards host Manchester United. As you can see from the picture, the stands were packed and the game was intense (and hot!). Kansas City surprisingly won 2-1. The result was a surprise on many levels, but most basically because the Wizards have stunk so far this season in MLS, and Manchester United is one of the biggest and most successful soccer teams in the world.



But you can't read TOO much into the game. United was relying heavily on their backups as many of their normal starters are still resting from World Cup duty or dealing with other ailments during what is for them the offseason. It was a good victory for KC, but nothing more. It doesn't count in the standings.

One exciting part of seeing Manchester United is the opportunity to see some world-famous players live and in-person. Ryan Giggs is a long-time stalwart of the team and has been hailed as a great player for years. He has never been able to make the big splash on the World Cup scene because he plays for Wales, but his achievements with Manchester United are fantastic. Even now at age 37, he plays with skill and flair.

You can see a couple of pictures of him here on the right.

He played for the full 90 minutes against KC. Although he had his moments, Giggs wasn't really a big factor on the day. In fact, the Wizards really annoyed the heck out of him with constant little pushes and bumps. Michael Harrington in particular got under Giggs' skin, leading to this exhange in the box (see picture on the right, look for the two guys tussling in the middle with arms outstretched). Giggs was given a yellow card for this dust-up. He probably thought (and perhaps rightly so) that all the niggling taps and bumps were out of place during an exhibition game. But then the Wizards don't get to play a big team like Manchester United very often, and they wanted to give it everything they had, so.....

After staying overnight in KC, we were able to get some Fiorella's Jack Stack Barbeque for lunch on Monday. If you know the KC barbeque scene, there are three very well-known chains. Arthur Bryant's is the old-school diner-type option. Gates is the fast-food franchise. Fiorella's Jack Stack is the upscale restaraunt version. All three serve good BBQ, and each tend to excel at one specific option or another (Oklahoma Joe's is another BBQ spot in KC that is getting rave reviews, and it's a crime I haven't eaten there yet, but...). My personal favorite is the Jack Stack, and it's mainly for their burnt ends. Here are the burnt ends as they arrived at our table:
And here they are 5 minutes later....


Succulent describes it best. These tasty morsels are just perfect. I've been to different Jack Stack's around KC probably a dozen times. I've never regretted the choice. This time, however, something unusual happened. As it was my first time in the Plaza Jack Stack location, I was looking around at everything like a rubbernecking tourist. A kitchen manager spotted me and invited Lacie and I to come back and take a look at their gear. He gave us a very short but fascinating look behind the scenes of the restaurant. I learned some of their basic techniques that I will be trying out the next time I try to smoke a brisket in my backyard grill. Of course, they have a little more "extensive" smoker.....

This beast was but one of three wood-fired industrial smokers this location employed. A note to the uninitiated: Real BBQ uses wood. Period. There should be no ovens at a BBQ joint, unless they're used for side dishes like cornbread. No gas, no electric... just pure Hickory wood.

So yes, Lacie and I had a great time. 'Til next time.....

SAH

July 21, 2010

Irony can be pretty ironic...

I'm getting down to business with regards to previewing the upcoming NFL season, but first I had to comment on a local political race here in Wichita.

The radio ads for a couple of candidates have been flooding the airwaves. Without naming names (If you're local, you already know who is who, and if you're not, then it doesn't really matter), let me give a brief paraphrased recap of the ads in the order they've aired:

Candidate A ad#1:
(Two un-named women having a discussion) Candidate A is the kindest, most sincere and intelligent person of all time. Candidate A is NOT a typical politician, but a genius businessman. Candidate A even signed a no-negative ad pledge, the only candidate in this race to do so. Candidate A will never run negative ads. We should all vote for Candidate A
Candidate B ad#1:
(Voice-over with muted music and sound effects background) Candidate A is a slick huckster who will say anything to get elected. Candidate A is not pro-life. Candidate A is likely to abuse any position of power he obtains. We should all vote for Candidate B, who is truly pro-life and conservative.

Candidate A ad#2:
(same two women as before...) I told you this would be a nasty campaign. Candidate B is a mud-slinging scumbag. Candidate B runs negative ads against his opponents. Candidate B is a political hack who lies all the time, and his negative ads prove it. Candidate B wants to send all our money to Mexico and start factories there while firing American workers. Candidate B is lower than dirt. We should vote for Candidate A.

I mean, maybe it's just me, but does anyone else see the irony here? Regardless of what you think of Candidate B, how can you take Candidate A seriously at this point? His first ad pledged a positive campaign...a pledge he broke with his very next ad. And what is the heinous crime he's accusing Candidate B of committing? It's running an attack ad, which is exactly what he's now doing himself!

Needless to say, I will not be voting for Candidate A in the primary.

SAH

July 12, 2010

World Cup of Crap saves the worst for last

The year was 1990. The World Cup was in Italy. After a sour, defensive tournament filled with fouls and flops, West Germany took the title after an ugly "win" over Argentina, in a game noted more for ugliness than soccer. The winning goal came from a penalty given after what looked to be a complete flop by Jurgen Klinsmann. But nobody outside of Argentina really complained too much, because the Argentines had done nothing but foul and complain all game long.

20 years later, we had a virtual deja' vu. After a sour, defensive tournament filled with fouls and flops, Spain took the title after an ugly "win" over Holland, in a game during which more time was consumed by fouls and out-of-bounds than actual play. The winning goal came moments after a missed offside call, but nobody outside of Holland is complaining too much because the Dutch didn't really do anything besides foul and complain all game long.

After the 1990 tournament, FIFA made several minor rules changes in an effort to clean up the game. For a time, they worked. It's time for new measures to be taken. The current state of affairs is unacceptable. Yesterday's game highlighted the worst aspects of the "modern" soccer tournament.

First, let's look at the Netherlands, who apparently thought they could foul their way to a title. Prior to yesterday, the Dutch were mostly badgered about Arjen Robben's flopping and rolling on the ground after any challenge. After yesterday, the Dutch look like the dirtiest team in the world. Defensive midfielders Nigel DeJong and Mark Van Bommel, already known as "physical" players, seemed intent on trying to one-up each other with crazy rough tackles. During the first half, Van Bommel came flying in late on Spain's Iniesta and wiped him out from behind without getting anywhere near the ball. He received a yellow card, but the play really deserved a straight red. It seemed as if the Dutch were looking to take advantage of referee Howard Webb's understandable reluctance to toss anyone out of the final. Over half the team picked up (deserved) yellow cards for incessant fouling, and yet the men in orange also kept haranguing Webb for supposed favoritism. It was despicable (and Van Bommel deserves a category of his own. How he managed to avoid getting tossed is the greatest mystery of this tournament). When they actually tried to play soccer, which was rarely, the Dutch showed some sparks. Robben had a couple of prime chances himself but he couldn't finish them. Too bad the team was more interested in playing rugby than soccer.

But what about Spain? Normally, this is the point when pundits (like me) would praise Spain for being noble champions, deserved winners against negative soccer. But I can't do it. Spain was lousy. When the Dutch came out fouling, Spain responded by.... you guessed it, fouling and flopping. Just to show that the Dutch weren't the only ones capable of ugly ball, Carlos Puyol wiped out Robben on an early slide from behind. While they didn't maintain the same kind of fouling pace as the Dutch, the Spanish certainly did more than their fair share. Poor Howard Webb's arm almost fell off from showing so many yellow cards. And then came the flops. Andres Iniesta, who also scored the "winner," deserves an Oscar for his performance. He duped Webb into giving Dutch captain Giovanni Van Bronckhorst (one of the few Dutch players who was actually trying to play soccer) a yellow card by launching himself into the ground (with a half-pike and double twist) after brushing against the defender's hip at speed. He then "earned" a second yellow (and the associated red) for Dutch defender Johnny Heitinga by plunging into the turf after the latter man touched his shoulder for an instant. Greg Louganis never topped that dive. The lasting image of this final game is that of players surrounding referee Howard Webb and complaining about something or other. The players spent more time trying to play the referee than play soccer.

Some of you may be asking, "but what about the goal? Didn't Spain at least attack and win the game?" Yes, Spain scored, but they rarely attacked (at least in the soccer sense). As usual, Spain tried to win the game by putting everyone to sleep. They sat back and played a billion lateral passes around midfield. They only rarely pushed forward trying to score (and were immediately fouled whenever they did... sigh... can you tell how upset I am by the magnitude of this wretched disaster of a final?). At one point in the second half, Spain had passed the ball around just inside their own half for about a minute, and I counted how many Spanish players were still in their own half of the field. A full SEVEN Spanish players were back in their own half. Let me say that again. With the ball, and with good possession (I mean, it's not like it was a goal kick or something way back near their own goal), Spain still played with SEVEN men staying in their own half of the field (not counting the keeper). That's not "patient buildup," or "clever passing," it's cowardly crap defensive soccer. Had the Dutch been pressuring with more guys up front, maybe there's a reason to have 7 guys there. But the Dutch never pressed with more than a couple of guys up top. Spain was simply content to pass the ball around midfield with 7 guys against two. Whatever happened to trying to win the game?

And what about the winning goal? Iniesta (you can't say he wasn't prominent in this game) was clearly offside as the initial cross came into the box. It was aimed at him, and his presence obviously bothered the defender who whiffed the clearance. Yes, it's a judgment call as to whether he's considered "involved in active play", but I think it's pretty clear that Iniesta was "interfering with an opponent" and "gaining an advantage by being in that position." I don't blame Webb for missing the call, as the poor guy had a tough enough job on the day, but I think it should've been called just the same.

So the "Dirty Dutch" had no business winning this game, and the "Simulating Spanish" failed to show that they deserved the title... is there any way we can go back and declare the wildly entertaining and positively-played Uruguay/Germany 3rd-place match to be the retroactive final? No? Oh well.....

So what is to be done? If the lasting images of the 2010 World Cup are those of players screaming at an overwhelmed referee, surely there is something that can be done to make things better. Well, there are some things that can be done, if FIFA has the guts to do them.

CAPT. SAH's OFFICIAL SUGGESTIONS TO FIFA:

  1. Create a new official position, that of the goal judge. Too many times we've seen hugely controversial decisions whether or not goals have been scored being determined by referees and linesmen who are 30 yards away. Take a tip from hockey and use goal judges. One official should be added next to each goal, with the primary purpose being to flag whether or not the ball has crossed the goal line. That takes some burden off the linesmen, who can concentrate more on the tricky offsides calls, and gives the referee a pair of eyes right next to the goal so he doesn't have to make judgment calls from 30 yards away. Just having goal judges would've almost certainly eliminated the controversy from the Germany-England game in this World Cup. Also, the goal judges could be another pair of eyes to watch for the increasing off-the-ball nonsense that goes on, particularly on free kicks and corner kicks.
  2. Use instant replay. No, not during the games, as has been such a point of contention with folks, but after them. The biggest problem with the rules of soccer is that they expect the participants to have at least some sense of honor. Sadly, that is no longer the case (if it ever really was). How many times during this world cup did we see guys rolling around holding their faces after getting nicked on the foot? How many times did we see guys flop to the ground after getting brushed? And conversely, how many times did we see guys callously plow through opponents with nothing more than a (possible) yellow card resulting? How many times did we see wrestling matches on corner kicks that made the WWE look tame? Even the best referee of all time couldn't possibly detect all the faking, all the cheap shots, and all the ... well... CHEATING that is going on in the modern game. It's a terrible shame that it has come to this, but when players are more concerned with screaming at the ref than playing soccer, something has to change. The answer is to get a little draconian, and TV instant replay can be the tool. After every big match, there should be a review of the game by officials, looking specifically for dirty play. Any time a player is caught faking something (and I'm talking about the obvious stuff, like holding your face after getting a bump in the chest), he must be immediately suspended for two games. Players that consistently violate the rules with violent play or incessant fouling should be suspended for two games. Yes, it's impossible to make this completely objective, but I think a decent attempt could be made. I fail to see how any independent viewer could watch footage of this World Cup and not believe that Nigel De Jong and Mark Van Bommel deserve an extra two-game suspension. They obviously have little concern for the rules of the game.
Obviously, there is no 100% solution, but these two additions could make a tremendous impact if properly executed. And for us fans, what is needed is to hold the rascals responsible in our own way. Teams that play crappy defensive soccer should not be supported. Teams that feature cheats should not be subsidized with our ticket money. Eventually, only the bottom line will make a difference with the powers-that-be, and then perhaps we can have tournaments and titles featuring soccer, not performance art.

SAH

June 27, 2010

Just not good enough


And it's over. This might have been the best US team from front to back that we've ever seen at a World Cup. But they weren't good enough. For the second straight cup, the US was eliminated thanks to a 2-1 defeat at the feet of Ghana. The US team showed a lot of heart, skill, and talent at this World Cup, but at the end of the day, they just weren't good enough to compete for a prize. Rather than grade individual players (sorry for the lack of grades after the Algeria game... I've been pretty busy at work), I'm going to discuss the state of the team overall.

The loss to Ghana means that the US exits the tournament with a record of 1 win, 1 loss, and 2 ties. In other words, they were a .500 team. They scored 5 goals and allowed 5 goals. Again... a .500 team. That's much better than they did 4 years ago, obviously, but no better than they did in 2002.

Speaking of 2002, let's take a look at that "glorious run" to the quarterfinals, the furthest advance by a US team in the modern era (post-WWII). In that tournament, the US had a record of 2 wins, 2 losses, and 1 tie. They scored 7 goals and allowed 7 goals. Sound familiar? It should. Really, that 2002 squad was also a .500 team that managed to get to the quarterfinals only because they got a fortunate break during group play (the late Korea goal that eliminated Portugal) and had the equally good fortune of playing Mexico in the second round.

What it means is that the US soccer team is treading water. They're capable of beating anyone on a given day, but equally capable of losing to almost anyone on any other day. That's been the case for a decade now, and quite frankly for 15 years (anyone else remember the US beating Argentina 3-0 en route to a semi-final berth in Copa America '95?). The US team is good, but not great. Only great teams win titles.

What's holding us back? Is it the coaching? No. While Bob Bradley choosing to start Ricardo Clark against Ghana won't go down as his finest moment, he actually has done a pretty good job with this group of players. They were giving 100% and Bradley's in-game moves nearly always were for the better. Sure, you can argue that a better coach gets more out of the players, but it's unlikely to be much. And besides, coaching at the international level is overrated. There isn't much time to work with the team, the opponents are often unknown until a few days before the game, and you can't just buy players to fit a certain system. Coaching at the international level is about motivation and attitude. There was (and has been) nothing wrong with the American's motivation and attitude.

That leaves the players. Our players are not good enough. Check that, our players are good enough, but we still don't have that ONE player that can make something special happen. Take Landon Donovan as the ultimate example of this. Donovan is almost certainly the best US player ever. He's the team's all-time leading scorer and has consistently found success within MLS. But he's not an "elite" player. Yes, he (finally, according to many critics) came through with the big goal against Algeria (shown right), but that was just a hustle goal. There was nothing special about it except for the timing. Think about the past four games. At what point did Donovan do something that just made you go, "Wow!"? It didn't happen. Donovan is a fine player, and could be a big part of a World-Cup contending team. You can say the same for Clint Dempsey, Michael Bradley, and a handful of other US team players.

But where's the superstar? Where's the player that can raise his game to that elite level and make something special happen? He doesn't exist (at least not yet). World Cup champions feature players that seem to do something amazing through the entire tournament. In 2006, Fabio Cannavaro seemed omnipresent in defense, and Italy marched to a title. In 2002, Brazil's Ronaldo was virtually unstoppable. In 1998, Zinedine Zidane was awesome. That's what makes the difference at a World Cup. The traditional powers bring talented teams of good players to every tournament. The US is getting to that level, but we won't be a real contender until we can produce that superstar that makes a difference.

Think about it. The US has had a host of "good" players in recent years. These guys have been productive (at least for short periods) in foreign leagues and international games. Eric Wynalda...Claudio Reyna.... Brian McBride.... but never a superstar. American superstars still end up playing football, baseball, and basketball. I'm afraid that until we get that superstar, the US will never be able to reach the highest levels of soccer. But the appearance of those players are seemingly acts of God. You can't predict who it will be or where he will come from. In the meantime, what are some practical improvements that need to be made on the US team?

First, we need more speed on defense. The US team has some good soccer players, but not the greatest athletes. That's a side result of the American sports scene, where the best athletes end up chasing the money in other sports. Ghana was able to burn us largely because Jay DeMerit is a scrappy defender, not a natural athlete. Oguchi Onyewu is a better athlete, but he was gimpy coming back from knee surgery and may be too old next time around. We need fresh blood in defense, and it needs to have good genes.

Second, we have to find a real goal-scorer. The incredible dearth of American forwards was never more clear than in this tournament. None of the 5 US goals were tallied by a forward, and none of them were even created by one (although Altidore played a big part in the second goal against Slovenia). It wasn't for a lack of chances. If only we could've transported the 2002 Brian McBride through time to play in this cup.... Maybe Jozy Altidore can become a great forward, but he's not there right now. And the really scary part is that anyone who watches MLS can tell you that talented young American forwards are almost non-existent. The US need is so crying that we called in Edson Buddle and Herculez Gomez, a couple of journeymen forwards who happened to be in good form. The US need is so crying that lots of fans were seriously hoping we'd call in Charlie Davies, who hasn't played a single game since a horrific car wreck a few months ago. Yikes... do we ever need a forward.....

At least the midfield looks good. Both Donovan and Dempsey will be on the wrong side of 30 by the time the World Cup kicks off again, but both could still contribute. Also, the US has a large number of good young options right now that should be even better in 2014. Michael Bradley and Maurice Edu are still very young. Stuart Holden shows a lot of promise. Jose Torres can get a lot better. Benny Feilhaber isn't too old. That's not even counting guys like Robbie Rogers and Alejandro Bedoya. Also, while Tim Howard wasn't at his best in this tournament, he is still solid and the US never seems to lack for good goalkeepers.

I'll have some more opinion on the rest of the World Cup, including the crazy officiating that hurt England and Mexico, at a later time. All I'll say for now is that as bad as the calls were, they didn't decide the games. Germany were better than England for 80 of 90 minutes, and it wasn't the officials that gifted Gonzalo Higuain the ball right in front of goal.

Until next time....

SAH

June 18, 2010

Just when the games were getting good....


The first full set of games, up to the point where every team had played one game in the World Cup finals, was probably the worst series of matches I've ever seen. I've seen AYSO games with more flair. Perhaps 3 or 4 out of 32 teams actually TRIED to score and win. The rest were perfectly content to sit back and defend, holding out for a scoreless tie. It used to be the case that a tie was like kissing your sister. The way most of the teams in the World Cup are playing, their sister must look like Scarlett Johansson. I've never seen so many teams anxious for a tie.

Sadly that indictment also applies to the US team, which basically defended for 89 minutes against England (minus the one minute when Ricardo Clark fell asleep and let Steven Gerrard run into the box for a simple tap-in goal). Today in Johannesburg, the US tried something new, an attacking mentality against Slovenia. But once again, the US looked nervous and jittery for the first 15 minutes or so, and let a Slovenian attacker have all kinds of time on the ball just beyond the penalty area, which he used to crack a nice shot that blew past Tim Howard in goal. The US came into the game after that, but were punished again for some sloppy defense just before halftime when the Slovenes nicked another goal on a counterattack.

It is greatly to the credit of the US players' character that they fought back in the second half to tie the game, and deserved a victory which was stolen from them by amazingly incompetent officiating. It is to the detriment of the World Cup finals that both the US and Germany were ruined on the same day by atrociously bad officiating. I'll grade the US players below, but first I want to comment on the referees today.

The average goals per game (that includes both teams scores for a given match) was 1.6 following the first set of games. That is insanely low, and reflects the ludicrously conservative and defensive tilt of the tournament thus far. As the second set of games started, the scoring went up ans teams started to realize that somebody had to actually WIN these games to advance to the next round (an aside: It's amazing how much better the sport of soccer is when teams are actually, you know...TRYING TO WIN rather than playing defense for a tie). The second set of games have averaged (as I type this) a robust 3 goals per game. Therefore it was with glee that I tuned in this morning to watch the Germans, the first round's most impressive team after a 4-0 demolition of Australia, play the Serbians, an underachieving team that desperately needed a win. Alas, just as the games were getting good, the refs fell apart.

The Germany-Serbia game started brightly, with the Serbs actually causing some concern for a German team that had never been threatened by Australia. The Germans righted themselves quickly, however, and resumed the same siege of goal they showed in their first game. All this time, the referee (from Spain) decided that he was going to enforce the rules with extra vigor. A series of relatively ticky-tack calls earned yellow cards. The most egregious example was a card given to German striker Miroslav Klose. Yes, he had tripped a player from behind, but replays showed that he barely touched the guy, and was certainly not guilty of any "violent or serious foul play." He just happened to get his legs caught up with the other guy. Some later, more physical tackles also resulted in yellows.

The players should've gotten the warning and taken it seriously, but maybe they couldn't believe that the referee was REALLY going to keep dishing out cards at the same rate. About half-an-hour into the game, Klose tried to poke the ball away from a Serbian midfielder and caught his shin instead. Klose was running up behind the player at the time. Without any hesitation, the referee reached to his pocket and delivered the second yellow card, and subsequent red card ejection. Again, while at least this time Klose actually did foul the player, it was hardly the sort of play that warrants a yellow card. Well, at least the ref could say he was consistent.

Stunned, the Germans let Serbia score a scrappy goal a minute later, and the entire game changed. Rather than a back-and-forth affair, it became yet another "park the bus in front of goal" effort by the Serbians. With a man advantage, they made it count and held on for the 1-0 victory.

You can't say that the referee "cost" the Germans the game. After all, it wasn't the referee who missed half a dozen sure scoring chances in the second half (that would be Lukas Podolski). It wasn't the referee who tamely hit a penalty shot just next to the keeper for one of the easiest penalty saves you'll ever see (Podolski again, looking like he'd completely forgotten how to score goals). But had the referee shown even a little discretion at the start of the game and not started throwing around yellow cards left and right (particularly the first one to Klose), the game would have almost certainly been better for it. I'm all for strict refereeing, and often times I find myself calling for yellow cards when they're not delivered. But you simply can't come out of the gates and start carding players for ticky-tack fouls, even if some of them are from behind.

Which brings us now to the US game. While the referee in the Germany-Serbia contest marred the game, you would have to admit that he was technically correct with most of his calls and didn't directly decide the outcome of the game. Sadly, the same cannot be said in defense of the referee in the US-Slovenia match.

It started early, and continued through the match. Koman Coulibaly from Mali was the referee, and he looked completely in over his head. He called phantom fouls (mostly against the US, but not entirely). He seemingly ignored actual fouls. During a first-half sequence when the ball was bouncing around in front of the Slovenia goal, he called play to a halt to issue a yellow card to Robbie Findley of the USA. It was supposedly for a handball. Replays showed that the ball had never touched Findley's hand or arm, and even if it had, the ball was going around like a pinball, and without waving your arms about you could hardly be adjudged to have purposely handled it.

In the second half, the oddball calls continued. After the US bravely battled back to tie the game with some thrilling goals, they had a free kick from a little ways outside the box. Landon Donovan curled in a chip that Maurice Edu prodded into the net past a stranded goalkeeper. It looked like a remarkable winning goal, but the referee had already blown play dead before the ball even reached the area. Incredibly, he annulled the goal and gave Slovenia a free kick for ... what? Nobody knew. The Americans asked, and were waved away. The TV announcers speculated, but absolutely nothing made sense. Replays shown over and over showed absolutely nothing by any American player. If anything, the Slovene defenders were guilty of some terrible holding and grappling on the play (holding and grappling that, it must be said, usually occurs on nearly every corner kick or free kick near the goal these days, much to the detriment of soccer). The referee never explained the call.

So a terribly wrong decision by the referee actually cost the US a sure victory. The referee didn't "decide" the game, but he came as close as you can without being obviously corrupt. He was incredibly incompetent. The only reason for the foul that has been suggested which has even a whiff of logic was that the referee had thought better of the foul he had just called against Slovenia and had already decided in his head to call a "make-up" against the US as soon as the ball was played. You see this in basketball all the time. If true, this theory absolves the referee of any corruption charges. But no matter how you cut it, an honest observer could not call the referee anything but incompetent. Phantom handballs, phantom fouls and make-up calls that decide outcomes have no place in any level of soccer, let alone the highest-profile level of the game.

OK, that's enough whining for now. The US is hardly the first team (nor the last, sadly) that will be screwed by lousy officiating at the World Cup. There's a long and sordid history of bizarre or simply incompetent refereeing jobs that have killed many a World Cup dream. The US still has its destiny in its own hands. They simply must beat Algeria, and if they do it by at least two goals then they are guaranteed a spot in the next round.

Let's hand out some grades:

Starters

GK -- Tim Howard -- B-
He was statuesque on the first goal, and couldn't make a play on the second despite coming out to challenge the attacker. Neither goal was a mistake on Howard's part, and he played generally well, but you'd like your goalkeeper to make at least one big save in a game like this. Howard did it against England, but he didn't against Slovenia.

D -- Steve Cherundolo -- C+
This may be a bit harsh, but Cherundolo simply didn't get involved like he has been doing in other games recently. His defense was sound, but his forays into the attack were toothless. He struggled to connect passes and didn't make any telling crosses into the box. The good part was a hopeful pass towards Donovan that the latter turned into a goal.

D -- Jay DeMerit -- C-
In a reverse of his recent form, DeMerit was rock-solid when defending man-to-man but lost when having to cover in space. His communication and movement was not in concert with Oguchi Onyewu, and could be at least partially to blame for both Slovenian goals.

D -- Oguchi Onyewu -- C-
See: Jay DeMerit. Onyewu's terrific showing against England was a distant memory. He looked like the rusty, clumsy Onyewu against Slovenia.

D -- Carlos Bocanegra -- B-
He was never toasted, and his defensive movement was sound. He also provided some good passes from the back. All that said, at no point did he really control his flank or jumpstart any attacks from the rear line. He was solid, but nothing special.

M -- Clint Dempsey -- C
Slovenia apparently marked Dempsey as the danger man for the US. They surrounded him all the time and more or less took him out of the match. To his credit, Dempsey kept hustling all game long and did some good work up front after halftime, but couldn't make much of an impact on the game.

M -- Michael Bradley -- B+
There might be an argument that Bradley shouldered some of the blame on the first Slovenia goal. But other than that, Bradley was terrific. He was all over the field and even wore his passing shoes. He made some excellent passes through the middle, and was really the only US midfielder to consistently maintain possession. That's not to say he morphed into Gerson, but at least he made a positive impact all game long. His tying goal was an excellent effort. He sprinted into the box and poked a bouncing ball past the keeper, a situation that probably sees more misses than makes, even by world-class players.

M -- Jose Torres -- D-
A lot of us (me too) have been hollering for Torres to get into the starting lineup. He looked superb in the warm-up games and offers far more offense than Ricardo Clark. But Torres looked overwhelmed by the situation. His play slowed back down to the Mexican league rate. His passes were off and his defense negligible. He was probably most to blame for the first Slovenian goal, and was nowhere to be seen when Slovenia countered for a second. His lone highlight was a solid shot on goal from a free kick.

M -- Landon Donovan -- A
Donovan has to be the man of the match for the US. He, like everyone else, looked out-of-sorts early on, but he started to get aggressive with the ball during the first half and it snowballed into the second. Donovan tormented defenders throughout the second half and buried his goal with a virtually unstoppable blast from an extreme angle. He was the main instigator of the US attacks for the last 45 minutes, and his curling free kick deserved a goal from Edu (The goal that was wrongly called back).

F -- Robbie Findley -- D+
He ran hard, but looked like the Findley we've come to expect in international matches. He didn't show much composure on the ball or skillful touch. His yellow card (an absolutely atrocious call by the ref, but.....) will knock him out of the next game. The US attack was much more dangerous after Findley left the field.

F -- Jozy Altidore -- B-
He didn't do much at all during the first half. He couldn't hold onto the ball nor could he beat any defenders. But in the second half, the light came on and he started playing like a younger Brian McBride. He won numerous headers and played a fantastic header to Bradley for the tying goal. Now if only Altidore could start finding the goal himself.....

Substitutes:

M -- Maurice Edu -- B-
He started poorly, but worked his way into the game as the second half wore on. His defensive coverage was far superior to what Torres was offering, and his offensive effort was at least as good. He scored what should have been the winning goal, but I think we've beaten that dead horse enough for now.

M -- Benny Feilhaber -- C+
It's telling that the US overall showed more attacking teeth in the second half, after Feilhaber came on at halftime. However, he was largely an invisible man. Nearly all the US attacks were either through Donovan, or simply direct balls to the forwards.

F -- Herculez Gomez -- NG
Made a late cameo and did fine while he was in there, but I can't grade him for 9 minutes of play.

The US can still advance, and they should be proud of today's effort, even if it was flawed by some bad defense and horrible officiating. Until next time....

SAH